2.0 Analysis 2.1 Introduction As no evidence was found of any mechanical deficiencies that could have contributed to the accident and the aircraft could have taken off easily in the distance used by the pilot, the analysis focused on the following: aircraft overloading, performance degradation, illusions created by drift, and occupant survival. 2.2 Aircraft Overloading The aircraft weight on take-off was about 73 pounds over the maximum allowable weight, and this reduced the take-off and climb performance of the aircraft. As there is no performance table available for the Citabria, it was not possible to determine with precision the degradation in the aircraft performance. Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that overloading of the aircraft adversely affected the rate of climb and the distance required for take-off. 2.3 Degradation of Performance With an available take-off distance of 5,000 feet and a 15-knot head wind, the aircraft should have been capable of easily clearing the hill. But overloading, downdrafts, and the drag caused by the folding canoe on the right float reduced the take-off and climb performance of the aircraft to the point where it was unable to clear the hill. The pilot then initiated a steep right turn at low altitude to return to the lake for a landing, but he did not maintain the required speed in the turn, and the aircraft stalled. In a level turn, stalling speed increases in proportion to the bank angle of the aircraft. The greater the angle of bank, the higher the stalling speed. 2.4 Illusions Created by Drift When the pilot turned from upwind to cross-wind flight to return to the lake for a landing, he might have been influenced by the illusions created by drift, which could have given him the impression that the speed of the aircraft was sufficient for a low-altitude manoeuvre. The aircraft was not equipped with a stall warning system; such a system could have alerted the pilot that the angle of attack of the wing was too great and that the floatplane was about to stall. The low altitude from which the aircraft stalled precluded the pilot from effecting a stall recovery, and the floatplane crashed. 2.5 Survival Aspects Based on the damage caused by the impact, it was determined that the impact forces did not exceed the limits of human tolerance, and that the passenger could have survived the accident if there had been no fire. 3.0 Conclusions 3.1 Findings The floatplane was overloaded. Aircraft performance was diminished by overloading, by the drag caused by the folding canoe attached to the right float, and possibly by downdrafts. The aircraft was not equipped with a stall warning system. During the climb-out and turn, the aircraft stalled and crashed. The low altitude of the aircraft precluded the pilot from effecting a stall recovery. 3.2 Causes The floatplane did not achieve the usual take-off and climb performance because it was overloaded; the aircraft's performance was also diminished due to drag caused by the folding canoe attached to the right float and, possibly, due to downdrafts. The floatplane stalled during a steep turn at an altitude insufficient for a recovery. The Board has no aviation safety recommendations to issue at this time.4.0 Safety Action The Board has no aviation safety recommendations to issue at this time.